The Call for Subsidising of Female Pads in Nigeria: A Misplaced Priority in Public Policy
Humans – particularly Nigerians – are often enamoured with the idea of "free" things; hence, the concept of hedonism. Unfortunately, nothing in life is truly free – not even the air we breathe. Take, for instance, clean air: it requires trees to filter and produce it, and those trees do not plant or preserve themselves. Someone, somewhere, takes responsibility for maintaining that ecosystem. Fresh air is not a product of happenstance.
Our
collective failure to plant new trees or preserve existing ones contributes to
the growing environmental crises we face today — heatwaves, flooding, and other
effects of climate change. This principle of responsibility and trade-offs
applies across all areas of governance, including the ongoing conversation
around government subsidies.
Recently, I have observed a growing call for the Nigerian government to subsidise feminine hygiene products, specifically sanitary pads. At first, it sounds humane and empathetic. But as I considered the implications, I was taken aback. The idea has gained emotional traction, and without careful consideration, a populist leader might someday push through such a policy. If implemented hastily, it could end up being labelled a scam, much like the fuel subsidy saga, by the very people advocating for it today.
Let’s
be clear: sanitary pads are essential for women's health and dignity. However,
the argument for state subsidy must go beyond sentiment. In a country with an underdeveloped
data infrastructure and limited fiscal space, policy choices must be grounded
in logic, data, and sustainability.
For
instance, what percentage of the Nigerian population is women? Among them, what
proportion is of reproductive age and needs sanitary pads? What is the average
monthly usage of sanitary pads by females in the country? Without credible
statistics, how can budgetary allocations be made? What portion of the national
budget would be devoted to such subsidies annually, and how sustainable would
that be over 5, 10, or 50 years?
Even
if we assume this policy is desirable, how can we ensure it isn’t marred by
corruption and inefficiency? Nigeria’s experience with subsidies has been far
from pleasant. According to the Nigerian Extractive Industries Transparency
Initiative (NEITI), Nigeria spent approximately ₦13.7 trillion (about $74
billion) on fuel subsidies between 2005 and mid-2023 (NEITI, 2023). NEITI
further noted that the subsidy regime lacked transparency and accountability,
suffering from significant fiscal leakages and inadequate service delivery. In
2011 alone, the federal government reportedly paid ₦2.6 trillion in fuel
subsidies — more than the capital expenditure budget for that year (BudgIT,
2012). Do we want to replicate this with sanitary pads?
International
Experiences with Sanitary Pad Subsidies
There
is no denying the fact that some global examples exist where governments subsidise
menstrual products. Indeed, a few countries have introduced such measures:
Scotland became the first country in the world to make menstrual
products free by law in 2020. The Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland)
Act requires local councils and educational institutions to provide free access
(Scottish Government, 2020). While globally praised, the program depends on
continuous funding and faces challenges, especially in rural and
under-resourced areas (BBC, 2021).
New
Zealand introduced free menstrual products
in public schools in 2021, aiming to reduce absenteeism and period poverty
among students (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2021). While the initiative
has gained support, there are ongoing concerns around logistics, supply chains,
and consistent availability in remote regions.
Kenya scrapped taxes on menstrual products in 2004 and in 2017
began distributing pads in public schools. However, the program has been
plagued by irregular funding, lack of transparency, and allegations of
corruption that have undermined its success (UNICEF Kenya, 2021).
India’s “Suvidha” scheme offers biodegradable pads at subsidized
rates and distributes them free in schools and rural areas. Yet, the program is
hindered by poor infrastructure, social stigma, and inconsistent outreach
(Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, 2022).
France and South Korea have launched targeted programs to
distribute menstrual products in schools and universities for economically
vulnerable women (Korea Herald, 2021; BBC, 2021). These are implemented within
stronger welfare systems and far more robust fiscal environments than Nigeria
currently has.
Lessons for Nigeria
These
global examples demonstrate that subsidizing menstrual products is possible,
but not without complexity, cost, and long-term commitment. These programs are
typically targeted, supported by comprehensive welfare policies, reliable data
systems, and functional public service infrastructures.
Nigeria,
however, is grappling with high debt, declining revenues, and weak
institutions. To introduce another large-scale subsidy — in a domain as
personal and commercially sensitive as menstrual hygiene — may be imprudent and
fiscally irresponsible.
Instead
of adding another poorly administered subsidy, the focus should be on empowering
people economically, especially women, so they can afford menstrual
products themselves. Nigeria must prioritise good governance, inclusive economic
growth, and sustainable social investments.
I
empathise deeply with women and girls who shoulder the monthly burden of
menstruation — financially, mentally, and emotionally. As a man raised by a
woman and surrounded by female family and friends, I understand the challenge.
But governance cannot and should not be driven by emotion alone. Public
policy must be built on rigorous analysis, data, and long-term feasibility.
If
we truly want to help Nigerian women, we must build systems that uplift their
earning potential, not create another subsidy trap prone to failure. NGOs,
private entities, and philanthropists can play vital roles in bridging this gap
through targeted interventions. The state, however, must not take on another
policy burden it cannot manage.
References
BBC. (2021, February 23). Scotland becomes
first country to make period products free. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-51621019
BudgIT. (2012). Subsidy or subversion? A
critical review of Nigeria’s fuel subsidy regime. https://yourbudgit.com
Korea Herald. (2021, February 18). Gov’t
to expand menstrual product support for low-income teens. https://www.koreaherald.com
Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers,
Government of India. (2022). Suvidha sanitary napkin scheme. https://chemicals.gov.in/schemes/suvidha
NEITI. (2023, August). NEITI reports ₦13.7
trillion spent on fuel subsidies from 2005 to 2023. Nigerian Extractive
Industries Transparency Initiative. https://neiti.gov.ng/news/neiti-subsidy-report
New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2021). Free
period products in schools. https://www.education.govt.nz
Scottish Government. (2020). Period
Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Act 2021. https://www.gov.scot/publications/period-products-free-provision-scotland-act-2021
UNICEF Kenya. (2021). Menstrual health and
hygiene in Kenya: Implementation and gaps. https://www.unicef.org/kenya
Comments
Post a Comment